eTHniciTY anD DeMocraTisaTion in aFrica

Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
D i s c u s s i o n Pa p e r 6 2
ETHNICITY AND DEMOCRATISATION IN AFRICA
Challenges for Politics and Development
OSITA A. AGBU
Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala 2011
Indexing terms:
Ethnicity
Ethnic conflicts
Interethnic relations
Democratization
Politics
Nation-building
Citizenship
Africa
The opinions expressed in this volume are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Language checking: Peter Colenbrander
ISSN 1104-8417
ISBN 978-91-7106-699-2
© The author and Nordiska Afrikainstitutet 2011
Production: Byrå4
Print on demand, Lightning Source UK Ltd.
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Revisiting the Literature .................................................................................................................................. 8
Exploring the Linkage(s) ...............................................................................................................................12
Some Theoretical Perspectives on Ethnicity .........................................................................................14
Emerging Issues................................................................................................................................................19
Democratisation in Post-Cold War Africa: Emerging Challenges...................................................21
References..........................................................................................................................................................25
Osita A. Agbu
4
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
Foreword
This Discussion Paper provides a conceptual exploration of the connections
between ethnicity and democratisation in post-Cold War Africa. Its point of
departure is the understanding that the ethnicity-democracy nexus, though
problematic, is of critical importance to an explanation of politics and development in Africa. The fundamental question raised is whether ethnicity can be
reconciled with the struggles for citizenship rights and democracy in the context
of the “unfinished” nation-state project in Africa. This is an issue that resonates
with the debate on the larger question of whether ethnicity obstructs or advances
democracy in Africa. The author, while acknowledging the widespread view that
ethnicity tends to complicate issues, fuel conflict and pose serious challenges for
democracy, cautions against the dismissal of ethnicity as a factor that is relevant
to democratisation on the continent. In terms of the conception of ethnicity,
the author draws on its manifestations in political and economic life, and warns
against any “ethnic determinism” in the analysis of politics and conflicts in Africa. The paper explores both the concepts of ethnicity and democratisation in
the African context, and follows this with a discussion of the linkages between
both. This forms the basis for examining the emerging challenges facing ethnicity and democratisation in Africa. Of note in this regard is the observation that
ethnicity is critical to understanding the politics of civil society and the struggles that underpin the nation-state project. It is also noted that in some contexts,
where certain sections of a country have been marginalised, ethnic resurgence
can take the form of demands for inclusion by way of democratic representation. In the concluding section, the author makes a case for the management
of ethnic diversities by African states in ways that bring together ethnicity and
citizenship within the framework of inclusive democratisation. This Discussion
Paper will be of interest to scholars and practitioners working in the fields of
African political science, development, peace and security.
Cyril Obi
Senior Researcher
The Nordic Africa Institute
5
Osita A. Agbu
Abstract
This paper revisits existing viewpoints on the nexus between ethnicity and democratisation in Africa. It seeks to explore and explain the linkages between the
two concepts as key factors in shaping political developments on the continent.
This overview addresses the question of whether ethnicity facilitates or obstructs
democratisation in Africa in light of the resurgence of ethnic nationalism. Generally, the critical issues pertaining to ethnicity and state-society relations have
assumed greater prominence in the face of the crisis of citizenship that is posing challenges to the postcolonial nation-state project in Africa. These issues
also underscore the ways in which ethnicity and democratisation respond to
developments within African societies as well as changes in a rapidly globalising world. The point is that the concept of ethnicity and its implications for
democratisation cannot be taken for granted, and produce different outcomes in
different states. Arising from the review of the various perspectives on ethnicity
and democratisation, it is argued that the concept of ethnicity should be nuanced when considering its role in African democracy and development. From
this perspective, the article examines the theoretical challenge ethnicity poses
to the postcolonial African state project, partly as a result of its implication in
political instability and conflict, and the challenges it poses for democratisation
on the continent.
6
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
Introduction
There is a need for a better understanding of the problems of ethnicity and
democratisation in Africa. This is partly because of the tendency to view ethnic difference as a major cause or driver of civil wars or political instability in
Africa. Closely related to this is the whole question of the relationship between
ethnicity and citizenship in emerging nation states, where there seems to be a
contradiction between loyalty to the ethnic group and the nation state. On the
surface, this appears to be a problem in many multiethnic African nation states
with histories of marginalising certain ethnic groups or entire regions from the
distribution of power and resources, but becomes rather complicated in cases
like Somalia, where everyone is Somali, but divided along clan lines. There is
also the problem of ethnic boundaries and the constructed nature of ethnicity
and the reality that it is dynamic and can change or respond to different factors or interests. Thus, while it may be necessary to be wary of falling into the
trap of some form of ethnic determinism when dealing with African politics
and conflict, it is equally important not to dismiss ethnicity altogether, but to
understand when and under what conditions it becomes relevant, and when it is
not. More important is the need to develop a set of tools with which to observe
the nexus between ethnicity and democratisation and explain that it is neither
fixed nor inevitable but depends on history, culture, politics and economics and
the character of the state in Africa.
In Africa therefore, the phenomenon of ethnicity and its dynamics need to
be thoroughly understood, both at the level of conception and its manifestation
in political and economic life. This paper assumes more relevance when it is
considered that ethnic identity, when mobilised in the pursuit of politics, interrogates the very notion of nationhood and by extension, national citizenship
in Africa, a situation that has wider implications for peace, development and
security. It should be noted that the view that ethnicity works against democracy is not peculiar to Africa. It has also been observed in Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union that a major reason for the failure of democratisation
has been ethnic-based conflicts (Nzongola-Ntalaja 2001:35). The challenge is to
interrogate these assumptions in the light of recent developments in Africa.
In view of the foregoing, it is important to raise some critical questions to
guide the discourse. For example, what is the nature of the relationship between ethnicity and democratisation in Africa? In what ways or under what
circumstances can ethnicity serve or subvert democracy? What are the major
issues involved? What challenges does the resurgence of ethnic nationalism in
some African countries pose for democratisation? Can ethnicity be reconciled
with the struggles for citizenship rights and democracy within the “unfinished”
nation-state project in Africa?
7
Osita A. Agbu
Revisiting the Literature
The literature on ethnicity and democratisation suggests that the linkages between both may be complex, given the varied interpretations that the concepts
can be subjected to. According to Chazan (1992:106), ethnicity denotes the
complexity of human existence and behaviour and defies simplistic definition.
It signifies perceptions of common origins, historical memories, identity and
common ties between people. It has its foundations in memories of past experiences and common aspirations, values, norms and expectations. Nnoli (1978:5)
defines ethnicity as a social phenomenon associated with interactions among
members of different ethnic groups. He further defined ethnic groups as social
formations distinguished by the communal character of their boundaries, with
the relevant communal factors being language, culture or both. Also, he noted
that ethnicity is behavioural in form and conflictual in content and that it exists
only within a political society consisting of diverse ethnic groups. In buttressing
this assertion, Nnoli (1995:6) observed that ethnic-group access to state power
or the lack of it is an important element in ethnic politics, especially if minority groups are denied access to power and resources based on the small(er) size
of their population (even in contexts where they contribute more to national
wealth), and that this is likely to lead to increased ethnic consciousness. He
opined that in Africa, access to state power is important for the various ethnic
groups because of the extensive intervention of the African state in the political
and socioeconomic spheres.
Contributing to the discourse, Anugwom (2000:64) sees ethnicity as arising
from a situation where a group of people, no matter how small, with different
cultural and linguistic attributes from those of its neighbours, use this as the
basis for solidarity and interaction with others. In his view, the sociocultural
consciousness and solidarity of the group plays an important role in the interaction with other groups, especially in terms of competition for power and
resource allocation within the nation state. Osaghae (1995:11) defines ethnicity as the employment and/or mobilisation of ethnic identity or difference to
seek advantage in situations of competition, conflict or cooperation. He sees
the ethnic group as one whose members share a common identity and affinity
based on a common language and culture, myth of a common origin and territorial homeland, which becomes a basis for differentiation. Commenting on
the issue of ethnic distinctiveness and boundaries, Barth (1969:11) had noted
that categorical distinctions do not depend on the absence of mobility, contact
and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation
whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and
membership in the course of individual life histories. He further observed that
ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of social interaction and ac-
8
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
ceptance, but are, quite to the contrary, often the very foundations on which
embracing social systems are built.
From an anthropological point of view, Barth went on to describe an ethnic
group as being based on the following: biological self-perpetuation; common
cultural values realised in overt unity in cultural forms; possession of a field
of communication and interaction; a membership which identifies itself and is
identified by others and constitutes a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order. Shehadi (1993:105), dwelling on the same issue, noted
that ethnic identity is objective to the extent that it denotes specific historical,
cultural and linguistic traits that distinguish one group from the other. He,
however, observed that the objective attributes are often amenable to subjective
manoeuvres accentuated by some real or felt sense of deprivation and denial.
Determining what is or is not an ethnic group appears simple. However,
the problem arises when one group is in competition with another, or others.
In such cases, it is possible for ethnic identities to become very fluid, so fluid
indeed that it is plausible to now say that ethnic-group identity may be socially
constructed. This perception was aptly captured by Lemarchand (1999:2), when
he observed that:
Ethnicity is never what it seems. What looks like ancestral atavism others identify as a typically modern phenomenon, anchored in the impact of colonial rule.
Where neo-Marxists detect class interests parading in traditional garb, mainstream scholars unveil imagined communities. And what many see as the bane of
the continent, others view as the basis of a moral social contract that carries the
seeds of accountability and transparency.
This gives us a good idea of the conceptual complexity of what we are trying
to explain. Indeed, as Lemarchand noted in the case of the Rwandan genocide
in 1994, questions arise as to the meaning of ethnicity when groups that had
shared the same values, customs and space for centuries suddenly descend violently on each other. Perhaps, seeking an explanation, Anderson (1983) came
up with the idea of “imagined communities,” as he tried to delineate the processes through which the “nation” came to be imagined, and, once imagined,
modelled, adapted and transformed. In concerning himself with social change
and the different forms of consciousness, he believed that beneath the decline of
sacred communities, languages and lineages, a fundamental change was taking
place in modes of understanding the world, which, more than anything else,
made it possible to “think” the nation.
In sum, certain denominators such as the fact of common origins, common
historical experiences, common aspirations and attributes like language and culture are clearly evident as features that may delineate what an ethnic group is.
Also, understandable is the view that ethnic conflicts may arise in situations of
9
Osita A. Agbu
competition or in situations of interaction among two or more ethnic groups. In
other words, perceived threats to the viability of the group’s culture or interests
may be taken as threats to individual members and may provoke a violent reaction (Wippman 1998:4). But then the question arises, are these interests really
communal or individualistic? Deciphering the web between individual interests
and group interests is another very problematic aspect of ethnic studies, which
invariably has implications for the various democratisation processes occurring
in Africa.
On the other hand, the literature on democratisation, which basically refers
to the process of liberalising state-society relations, indicates that democratisation, though a widespread concept, is also a contested one. For example, Olowu
et al. (1995) define democratisation as the movement from the dominance of
state-society relations by one institution (usually the executive branch) to a polycentric structured society. Nwokedi (1995:17) was of the view that democratisation is the process of a shift away from non-democratic forms of government
towards democracy and that it may equally refer to the expansion of democratic
space or performance within a democratic polity. Nwabueze (1993) adopted a
wider view of democratisation as a concept synonymous with multipartyism
but also including other conditions such as a virile civil society; a democratic
society; a just society; a free society; equal treatment of all citizens by the state;
and an ordered and stable society infused with the spirit of liberty, democracy,
justice and equality. In his contribution, Horowitz (1994) pointed out that although democratisation is a worldwide phenomenon, it is neither universal nor
uniform in places where it exists. He also observed that democracy is basically
about inclusion and exclusion, about access to power, about the privileges that
go with inclusion and the penalties that accompany exclusion. While the spirit
of competition may be seen as healthy for democracy, anchoring this competition on ethnicity or ethnic factors may be counterproductive to the movement
towards democratisation and democracy, and that ethnic conflict may negate
the developmental function of democracy (Anugwom 2000:67).
However, there is another perspective that is critical of the dominant paradigm of liberal Western democracy, noting that it is of limited relevance to the
interests and aspirations of the majority of Africans (Ake 1993, 2000; Lumumba-Kasongo 2005). In this view, Western democracy, with its emphasis on procedures and multiparty elections, hardly focuses on the content and context of
democracy, reducing it to an intra-class competition for power (Ninsin 2006:3).
Arguing along these lines, Ake (1993) concludes that “ruling elites perceive of
democracy as more a means than an end, a strategy for power, while for the
masses it is a struggle for socio-economic emancipation and democratic inclusion.” In this regard, the view that liberal democracy in Africa is a limited democratic opening that does permit some form of participation and accountability
10
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
(via periodic elections) but does not go far enough to empower the majority
of African people. Rather, it enables the elite (minority) to dominate political
and economic power. In this regard, ethnicity’s impact on politics and democratisation may depend on two issues: how it is susceptible to manipulation by
the dominant elite, and the ways in which identity may become a platform for
excluded groups to organise and struggle for group interests.
More recent literature on ethnicity has connected the wider discourse of
identity-based conflicts as manifestations of the crisis of citizenship in Africa.
Therefore, “the concept of national citizenship, of equal rights, benefits and duties for all citizens has been attenuated or bifurcated, with the state sunk in a
cesspool of inter-group struggles and conflicts over the distribution of public
goods” (Adejumobi 2005:20). What this suggests also is that the postcolonial
state is implicated in the denial of citizenship rights to those considered outsiders, non-citizens or lesser citizens. It also explains why in some countries, ethnicity has become a mobilising tool for confronting the legitimacy of the state.
This can be gleaned from the activities of the New Forces (based in northern
Côte d’Ivoire) that rebelled against the Ivorian state in the early part of the first
decade of the 21st century (Yere 2007), the agitation of the Odu’a People’s Congress protesting the marginalisation of the Yoruba in the 1990s in Nigeria, the
Movement for the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) in South East Nigeria
(Omeje 2005; Metumara 2010; Adekson 2004), and the insurgency against the
Nigerian federal government by the Movement for the Emancipation of the
Niger Delta (MEND) (Ukoha 2007; Okonta 2007).
From the foregoing, it is clear that ethnicity is relevant to the struggle for
democracy in Africa. It plays a crucial role in the struggle to determine who will
eventually be included or excluded from access to state resources, power and
political representation (Adejumobi 2005). In many African countries where
multiparty democracy has been formally institutionalised and where there is a
history of complaints of ethnic domination/exclusion, there is always the risk
that dominant ethnic elites may resort to majoritarian rule in the context of
zero-sum politics. When this happens, the result is often post-election conflicts,
with excluded groups inevitably protesting the outcomes of elections that they
perceive as being skewed against them in the first place.
In some cases, efforts at political engineering aimed at diffusing the ethnic
tensions that accompany multiparty elections in Africa have taken the form
of inclusive power-sharing arrangements or governments of national unity that
seek to accommodate otherwise excluded elites. Thus, if not properly managed,
ethnicity in the context of democratisation could contribute to intractable conflicts. Therefore, an exploration of the linkages between ethnicity and democratisation is germane to the analysis of socio-political development in Africa.
11
Osita A. Agbu
Exploring the Linkage(s)
There is little doubt that in the main, ethnicity and democratisation are interconnected in the context of African development. We cannot address democracy without considering the influence of ethnicity on political behaviour, including voting patterns and elite politics, while ethnicity only becomes relevant
as a result of the politicisation of ethnic identity in the struggle for power or
political competition. It is also possible to argue that the situation sometimes
is almost akin to an antithesis as the two concepts appear to be in contention
in the nation-building project in Africa. Attempts to suppress ethnicity in the
first decade of independence in many African countries did not quite succeed.
Rather, what is noticeable is that in the face of the crisis of citizenship and the
nation-state project in many African states, and increased globalisation, ethnicity has resurged, posing challenges for democratisation.
As explicated in the seminal scholarship of Bangura in his work on identities,
when the modern states were created by European powers in Africa, the monoethnic idea of the nation state was foisted upon diverse societies, which in many
cases had large numbers of ethnic groups. Thus, post-Second World War nationalism in Africa often took place within the colonial states created by the European imperial powers. The common view among the then nationalists was that
only the state could build a new, homogenous and united community, which
meant subordinating diverse ethnic groups to a single national logic. This in
turn proved to be problematic in the face of historically constructed inequalities
and disparities. In the process, nations created by postcolonial states ended up
alienating or marginalising some ethnic groups, particularly when the nationstate project was led by an authoritarian/single party or military regime. Thus
the idea of the multiethnic nation state in Africa was problematic right from its
inception and fed into interethnic tensions during the period of economic crisis
and pressures for democracy in the 1980s.
Generally, democracy in its populist form tries to eliminate ethnic conflict
by pursuing the policy of “national self-determination” on the one hand, and
dealing with individual rights often at the expense of group rights or identities. In this regard, the expectation is that patriotism would create a transcendent territorial community. A new people (nation) will be created in the process
of state-building, complemented by emerging anti-elite class interests of either
the working people or the middle class (Glickman 1995:5). Perhaps it was because of this mode of thinking in the social sciences, especially after the Second
World War, that little attention was paid to the “ethnic question” (Stavenhagen,
1990:6). It is only since the 1980s that scholars in Africa have refocused attention on the study of ethnie and its related aspects of ethnic identity, interethnic
relations and ethnic conflicts.
12
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
Generally, the relationship between ethnicity and democratisation appears to
be that of contradictions on the one hand, and complementarity on the other.
As observed by Horowitz (1994:6), given the dilemma of multiparty politics,
it is reasonable to maintain that in ethnically divided societies majority rule
will not be a solution but a problem, because it permits the domination of one
group, which is in the majority, over the others. This creates some sort of fear
among the dominated groups, which could lead to conflict. Now this is just one
side of the coin: the other is that the genuine incorporation of ethnicity or the
inclusion of ethnic concerns may contribute to stability in the system, or to the
development of democracy. In this case, ethnicity performs legitimate political
functions and is important in deeply divided societies. It could perform this role
when ethnic differences are recognised and an acceptable formula worked out
among the various groups in the society for including ethnic concerns in the
design of the democratic process.
Anugwom (2000) notes that some level of ethnic conflict or rivalry should be
expected in ethnically plural societies and that, indeed, when these conflicts are
non-violent they may be regarded as a contributory factor to social development.
On the other hand, when these conflicts are violent and threaten democratic
transitions, as in the case of Nigeria, or underpin mass violence, as in Rwanda,
Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), ethnicity becomes a
contributory factor in social disintegration and crisis (Anugwom 2000:69).
The salience of the centrifugal forces pulling in the opposite direction to that
of the forces of democratisation is quite insightful and has serious implications
for the democratisation process in Africa (Ake 1992). Note, for instance, the
difficulties of democratisation in Nigeria, Kenya, the DRC and Ghana. In fact,
respected authorities in this field like Nnoli (1995:24) identified certain intervening variables that serve as obstacles to democracy in the context of ethnic
pluralities. These include the extent of the role of the state in the society, the
class character of the national leadership and the history of interethnic relations,
especially the critical moments of violence or the serious threat of it.
Today, with political liberalisation and the adoption of liberal democratic
constitutions in many African countries, two important stages in the process of
democratisation have been identified: issues that have been suppressed are restating their claims on the state while groups that have been oppressed are openly
reasserting their identities. As Akwetey (1996:104), notes, this reassertion of
identities and restating of claims usually manifest themselves, depending on the
prevailing social and political conditions, either as ethno-political protests or
rebellion. In addition, the declining capacity of many postcolonial African states
to ensure personal and economic security is another major reason for the exacerbation of ethnic conflicts, as the different groups struggle with each other for
access to resources and power. Though the struggles for democracy have been
13
Osita A. Agbu
largely defined in terms of the quest for the expansion of political space, human
rights, civil liberties and economic, social and cultural rights, the reality is that
ethnically instigated conflicts are embedded in the ongoing political struggles.
Ethnicity may pose obstacles at the threshold of democratisation and even
after the threshold is crossed (Horowitz 1994:37). Therefore, it can be argued
that under certain circumstances a strong and conflictual link exists between
democratisation as a process of governance and ethnicity. The challenge for us is
to determine the organising framework around which democratic principles can
be guaranteed on the one hand, while also responding to and respecting group
interests in ethnically diverse societies.
Some Theoretical Perspectives on Ethnicity
There are several perspectives in the study of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts,
some major, others highly compartmentalised. Lake and Rothchild (1996) proffer three broad approaches to the study of ethnicity and ethnic conflict. These
are the primordialist, instrumentalist and constructivist approaches. They arrived at these categorisations following a critical analysis of the perspectives of
the different scholars and policy-makers who participated in the University of
California-based Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) Project
on the International Spread and Management of Ethnic Conflicts.
According to the authors, the primordialist approach takes ethnicity as a
fixed characteristic of individuals and communities (Kaplan 1993; Connor
1994). Whether rooted in inherited biological attributes or centuries of past
practice now beyond the ability of individuals or groups to alter, one is invariably and always a Serb, a Zulu, a Swede or a Chechen. In this view, ethnic divisions and tensions are “natural.” Although recognising that ethnic warfare is
not a constant state of affairs, primordialists see conflicts as flowing from ethnic
differences and, therefore, not necessarily in need of explanation. The most frequent criticism of the primordialist approach is its assumption of fixed identities
and its failure to account for variations in the level of conflict over time and
place. The approach does not seem capable of explaining the emergence of new
and transformed identities, or to account for the long periods when ethnicity is
not conflictual.
The instrumentalist approach presents ethnicity as a tool used by individuals, groups or elites to attain some larger, typically material end (Brass 1985;
Rothchild 1986). In this view, ethnicity has little independent standing outside
the political process in which collective ends are sought. Therefore, ethnicity
is primarily a label or set of symbolic ties used for political advantage, just like
interest group membership or political party affiliation. A major criticism of this
approach is that ethnicity is embedded within and controlled by the larger soci-
14
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
ety: hence, it is not something that can be decided upon by individuals at will.
In the alternative, critics argue that ethnicities are inherently social in nature
and can only be understood within a relational framework (Esman, 1994:13).
In line with this thinking, an emerging scholarly consensus can be found
in the constructivist approach, which seeks to provide the relational framework
by emphasising the social origins and nature of ethnicity (Anderson 1983; Brubaker 1995). In the constructivist view, ethnicity is not an individual attribute,
but a social phenomenon. A person’s identity remains beyond the choice or control of that individual. Rather it is constructed from complex webs of social
interactions. The Yugoslav case as an example is quite apt and revealing. Till
the late 1980s, a Yugoslav identity had evolved from the cosmopolitanism of the
urban areas and the incentives given by the federal government, but as the state
disintegrated, this identity was broken as individuals quickly returned to their
more particularistic roots as being Serb, Croatian or Bosnian. As with instrumentalists, constructivists do not see ethnicity as inherently conflictual. Rather,
conflict is caused by certain pathological factors in the social system, which
individuals do not control. In this view, it is the social system that breeds violent
conflict, not individuals, and it is the socially constructed nature of ethnicity
that can cause conflicts. It is important to note that constructivists’ accounts of
ethnic conflicts are generalisable, but only to other conflicts that are also based
on socially constructed groups and cleavages. These include clan, religious, regionalist or nationalist groupings but exclude class and other material interestbased conflicts that are more likely founded on individual attributes (Lake and
Rothchild 1996).
However, methodologically important for us is that whether ethnicity is socially constructed or the rational, purposive choice made by individuals and
groups, the basic theoretical and research challenge is to be able to identify those
social systems or conditions most prone to violence. This knowledge can then
enable the search for appropriate measures to ensure that violence does not arise
or recur.
Below is a table that presents a bird’s-eye view of the various perspectives on
ethnicity. This table does not lay claim to being exhaustive, but only serves as a
succinct account of the categorisations and associated assumptions and theories.
The table is self-explanatory and shows the variants that have been identified
from the three major categories. Of these, the modernisation theory (Deutsch
1953; Morisson and Stevenson 1972; Gurr 1994) and the Marxist perspective
(Nnoli 1978, 1998; Hameso 1997) have generated the greater number of polemics and discourse over the years. Equally important has been the colonial
theory (Nnoli 1978; Otite 1990), while increasingly visible are the aggression
theory (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff Jr. 1996; Elingsen 2000) and the counterhegemonic theory (Obi 2001).
15
Osita A. Agbu
Theoretical Perspectives to Ethnicity
Major
Approaches
Primordialist
Instrumentalist
Basic Assumptions
Theories
– Ethnicity as a fixed characteristic
– Ethnic divisions and tensions
“natural”
– Conflicts emanate from ethnic
differences
– Ethnic identity important
– Inherently conflictual
Ethnic
Identity
Theory
– Ethnicity as a tool used by individuals and groups
– Ethnicity thrives within the political Colonial
process
Theory
– Ethnicity part and parcel of similar
political affiliations
FrustrationAggression
Theory
Primordial
Loyalties
Theory
Marxist/
ModernisaDependency
tion Theory
Perspective
– Not inherently conflictual
Constructivist
– Ethnicities are of a social nature
– Ethnicity to be understood within a
“relational framework”
Social Inter- Counter– Ethnicity constructed from webs of
actionist
Hegemonic
social interactions
Perspective Theory
– Not an individual attribute but a
social phenomenon
Not inherently conflictual
StructuralModels
perspective
* This table was derived from the literature survey by author.
Let us briefly look at the foregoing theoretical perspectives. The modernisation theory as it relates to ethnicity basically posits that as far as citizens agree
to transfer their allegiances and affiliation away from parochial identities to the
larger society, there will be a tendency for greater political and economic integration and interaction among people (Deutsch 1953). It regards the state as the
confluence of individual wills and places it above the particular interests of any
specific group. During the better part of the Cold War, most scholars believed
that modernisation would lead to decline in ethnic conflagration, to be replaced
by loyalties to the larger societies. To many of the nationalists and African leaders who received the mantle of leadership after independence, the nation-state
project was very attractive as it promised not only internal order, but also development and the ability to contain the varied interests of the multifarious ethnic
groupings. This would have been possible if the post-independence state was able
to transcend traditional group loyalties in favour of an abstract sense of community (Nnoli 1995).
The Marxist perspective, on the other hand, relates the ethnic problem to
the dynamics of class struggle. Drawing heavily on Marx’s analysis of Asiatic or
“prehistoric modes of production,” ethnic awareness is seen as “false conscious-
16
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
ness,” which contrasts with “true” class consciousness. From this perspective,
ethnicity in Africa is perceived as a false consciousness of identity often foisted
on working people by the dominant class, first to mask the reality that they
are being exploited, and second to prevent them from forming a class alliance
with other similarly exploited classes from other ethnic groups to overthrow
the dominant class. Marxist analysis gives primacy to class consciousness over
ethnic consciousness, and in some cases sees the latter as a reactionary form of
consciousness that should either be ignored or neutralised. In more recent applications of Marxist theory to ethnicity in Africa, ethnicity is treated as something used by the dominant elite to divide the people, or mobilise them along
ethnic lines to pursue what is in reality the agenda of the political elite.
However, as Hameso (1997:14) observed, logic dictates that if ethnic consciousness and in effect ethnicity is false, as argued from this perspective, it
would be less worthy of study and, indeed, should have disappeared as a phenomenon. But this has not been the case. In other words, it should not have been
as resilient as it has been. The resilience and indeed resurgence of ethnicity in
Africa suggests that the earlier conclusions of Marxist analysis on ethnicity need
to be further interrogated.
For its part, the colonial theory simply amplifies the role of colonial administration in Africa in fostering ethnic and communal identity consciousness (Nnoli
1978, 1989; Otite 1990). Here, colonial racism served as an instrument in the
colonialists’ quest to control Africa’s resources. In the process, however, colonial
racism, which excluded Africans from power and resources, fuelled interethnic
competition for access to scarce resources and gave rise to belligerent ethnic
consciousness when the colonial authorities decided to grant limited concessions
to the colonised people. According to Nnoli (1978:7), at times the historical and
competitive aspects of this consciousness became linked. Contemporary competition may create a common consciousness among previously and historically
hostile and warring sections of the same ethnic group. To understand ethnicity,
therefore, it is important to know when and how the common consciousness
was brought about.
The frustration-aggression theory posits that relative deprivation may give rise
to frustration and this serves as a fulcrum for the mobilisation of groups, which
may result in heightened consciousness and conflict (Ellingsen 2000:230). It assumes that aggression is always a consequence of frustration and that frustration
often leads to aggression. It also assumes that frustration-aggression patterns are
culture-bound: that is, that aggressive impulses and group/individual targets are
shaped by different or various cultural systems. Therefore, the onus lies with the
social system to determine means and ways of managing and locating an outlet
for frustration and consequently aggression.
Succinctly, the counter-hegemonic theory, which possesses strong explana17
Osita A. Agbu
tory powers, seeks to deconstruct the currently centralised, authoritarian and
crisis-ridden nation-state project in Africa as observed by Obi (2001:13). It
maintains that the resurgence of ethnicity can be defined within the power
relations corresponding to the nature of the reinvigorated drive by global neoliberal forces to further integrate many developing countries into the international
capitalist system. The partnership between the multinationals and the national
elite in countries endowed with mineral resources and the political and adverse
environmental consequences of this invariably give rise to some opposition. In
this opposition, ethnic identity is thus transformed into a mobilising element
not only for contesting access to state power within a context of competing and
conflicting ethnicity, but also as a modality for organising social forces to resist
alienation, extraction and exclusion by the hegemonic coalition of the ethnic
elite.
On the other hand, the structural models perspective relates to the contrast
between ranked and unranked systems of ethnic stratification, a distinction that
rests upon the coincidence or non-coincidence of social class and ethnic origins.
According to Horowitz (1985:22), where the two coincide, it is possible to have
ranked ethnic groups. But where groups are cross-class, then what you have will
be unranked groups. These models, therefore, suggest that the frequency, intensity and forms of conflict vary depending on whether interethnic relations are
characterised as ranked or unranked.
As an alternative to the modernisation and mobilisational perspectives, it
has been argued, and correctly too, that ethnicity is an inherent aspect of social
change in all culturally heterogeneous societies, and it is not possible to make
ethnicity disappear. The stability of societies is not threatened by ethnicity per se,
but by the failure of the state to explicitly recognise and mediate competing ethnic interests. This mediation and accommodation of competing interests could
be achieved through some sort of political arrangement that equitably addresses
diverse ethnic interests in terms of political representation, citizenship rights
and access to power and national resources.
On the other hand, there is a widely held view that the emergence and sustenance of democracy and democratisation cannot be explained by any single
factor (Vanhanen 1997). Indeed, it has been difficult for researchers on this
subject to agree on the most appropriate theoretical explanation of democratisation. However, scholars like Lerner (1968) and Lipset (1959, 1960) connect
democratisation to economic growth and modernisation and this appears to be
the most influential approach in the field. Many scholars believe that certain
preconditions are necessary for democratisation. These include the following – a
fairly high level of economic growth, a strong middle class, a tradition of tolerance and respect for the individual, the presence of independent social groups
and institutions, a market-oriented economy and the existence of elites willing
18
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
to give up power (Sancton 1987). Other researchers have also emphasised that
democratisation is connected to different causal factors, including historical factors, social structures and conditions, economic development, external factors,
political culture and political leadership (Dahl 1971; Diamond et al. 1988).
Vanhanen (1997) postulates an evolutionary theory in which he argues that
we can find an explanation for democratisation from the distribution of various
resources used as sources of power. This theory invariably appears to belong to
the instrumentalist conception of competition. With the emphasis on resources,
power and their distribution, the possible link with politicised ethnicity rears
its head once more. Therefore, there is this intricate linkage between ethnicity
and democratisation at the conceptual level that has to do with how individuals
and groups relate to each other and the state in the context of power relations.
Whether this relationship ensures stability or is perpetually prone to conflict in
a given instance depends on the nature of the society and the mechanisms put
in place for the maintenance of peace and stability. The assumption, however, is
that when societies are open and governance is based on transparency, accountability and free choice (between equal competitors based on fair rules), democracy tends to promote stability and non-violent resolution of conflicts.
Emerging Issues
A critical issue in the linkage between ethnicity and democracy is the transformation of civil society in many African countries. Ethnicity becomes more
relevant when we seek to analyse the role of civil society in democratisation. The
question that flows from this is how and to what extent does ethnicity shape
civil society or its politics? What does this mean in terms of struggles by prodemocracy groups within civil society that seek to push the state to introduce
democratic reforms? Is ethnicity one of the tools that dominant elites within the
state can use to divide civil society and, by extension, provoke conflict?
Ethnicity often finds expression in terms of relations of power between those
considered part of a group or “one of us” and those considered other or “one
of them.” These relations and dynamics between insiders and outsiders with
respect to inclusion in or exclusion from power and access to resources are also
tied to historically defined forms of class relations and positions relative to state
power. It should always be considered that the relationship between ethnicity
and democracy is constantly shaped by the dynamics of the relations between
and interaction of the social forces within the state. With the reconfiguration of
state power in the face of changes attendant on globalisation, and the declining
hegemony of the centralised state in Africa (and the increased legitimation of
multiparty democracy), there is growing pressure for decentralisation in various
countries (Salih and Markakis 1998). This is an emerging development that
19
Osita A. Agbu
cannot be “ethnic-blind” or neutral. The challenge, therefore, is one of democratising through the devolution of power to lower tiers of governance, but taking
the dynamics of ethnic identities, their various manifestations and competing
interests into consideration.
As noted earlier, Africa faces the reality of the existence of diverse ethnic
groups initially forced into colonially defined borders as colonial states. The
decision to keep these boundaries in the postcolonial era has meant that ethnic
diversity and ethnicity have remained a major issue in the nation-state project
in Africa. A troubling dimension to this is the nature of competing ethnicities
in the context of diminishing resources and increasing urbanisation in Africa.
Again, the resurgence of ethnic identity politics could emanate from perceptions
by certain ethnic communities that they were under threat or being marginalised, or have lost out in their dealings with the state. Such perceptions could
also be the result of perceptions of having lost out to more powerful neighbours
and rivals in the competition for access to power and resources. Examples of
such perceptions of marginalisation underlie the insurgency of ethnic minority
militias in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta (Okonta 2007), and to some extent account for the crisis in Darfur as well as the decision of South Sudan to vote for
independence after decades of war against the Khartoum government.
Experiences from the attempts at democratisation in Africa show that the
opening up of democratic space for the growth of the civil society also sometimes opens up society to ethnic resurgence, more often than not in the form
of demands for “democracy dividends” from the party in power. Where the
government is seen as favouring one ethnic group at the expense of others, or
as being unable or unwilling to acquiesce in the demands for inclusion and
equity, interethnic tensions often result, and in extreme cases violent conflict.
Therefore, from a political and historical perspective, centralisation, rather than
transcending ethnic divisions and strengthening a homogeneous nation-state
project, has dialectically fuelled ethnic resurgence in the wake of economic crisis
and the non-resolution of citizenship rights.
So far, the fragile postcolonial African state appears to be incapable of responding adequately to challenges that ethnic difference and interethnic power
relations pose for the national democratic project. Responses have, therefore,
ranged from political arrangements based on ethnic federalism, as in Ethiopia,
to the power-sharing whereby the distribution of key political posts is based on
geopolitical representation and spread, as is the case in Nigeria, or governments
of national unity that include the opposition, as in the case of Kenya.
This section would be incomplete without some reflection on positive aspects
of ethnicity (Osaghae 1995). It could, for instance, serve as an umbrella for mobilising resources and support for community development and also as a safety
net for indigent members of ethnic groups in the highly competitive urban cen20
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
tres of Africa. However, there is always the threat that ethnicity can be used by
desperate elites seeking power by any means or that their protesting their exclusion from power can sow seeds of discord in the polity. Either way, it should be
noted that the relationship between ethnicity and democracy is mediated by the
state. In some cases, the state becomes a site or target for ethnic conflict. Thus,
the nature of the state is critical in influencing the outcome of this linkage, either in positive or negative terms. The relationship also implies that the state and
its institutions have an important role to play in addressing the challenges that
ethnicity may pose for the national democratic project.
Democratisation in Post-Cold War Africa: Emerging Challenges
Two major paths have been chosen for the transition to multiparty democracy
and democratisation in Africa. The first was direct recourse to constitutional
change of power through the ballot box in nationally organised elections, while
the second was through the mechanism of the sovereign national conferences in
the 1990s. This notwithstanding, ethnicity was a factor in political transitions,
be it in the Anglophone, Lusophone or Francophone countries. However, careful observation of the democratisation processes showed that conflict was caused
not by the diversity of peoples, but rather by the way these diversities were constructed and managed and how they related to a particular structure of power.
In cases where managing diversities appeared to deepen existing cleavages or
reproduce relations of domination by one group of the other, the potential that
democratic opening would raise expectations of change and result in ethnic tensions when such expectations were not fulfilled was always a possibility. Such
tensions have attended post-election crises in many African countries, most recently Kenya, Guinea and Nigeria. The challenge, therefore, is to find a way of
democratically balancing the demands and expectations of diverse groups and
building consensus through an equitable and inclusive bargaining process.
Another emerging issue deserving close attention is the relationship between
ethnicity and citizenship, as the latter constitutes a key building block in democratisation and nation-building (Adejumobi 2005). It is possible to argue
that a lot of the pre- and post-election conflicts in Africa are closely related to
the crisis of citizenship in multiethnic societies. An example of this problem is
Côte d’Ivoire, where ethnic groups organised in terms of the north and south
have been divided over the issue of Ivorian citizenship since the death of the
country’s patriarch or founding president, Houphouët-Boigny, in 1993. Based
on the concept of Ivorité or “true Ivoriness,” political elites from the south have
sought to exclude their northern counterparts from power, while members of the
northern elite, with the backing of some neighbouring countries, have insisted
on their rights as Ivorian citizens (Yere 2007:50–8). These differences eventually
21
Osita A. Agbu
culminated in civil war between 2002 and 2007, ending with the signing of a
power-sharing arrangement between President Laurent Gbagbo and Guillaume
Soro of the New Forces (in control of the north), who took the position of prime
minister. In spite of this, the non-resolution of the divisions over contested citizenship reared its head in the November 2010 presidential elections in which
both Gbagbo and Allasane Quattara claimed victory, leading to the resumption
of hostilities early in 2011 and the eventual defeat of Gbagbo’s loyalists and
Quattara’s assumption of office with support of forces sympathetic to his cause
and sections of the international community.
What the foregoing case shows is the issue of citizenship posing a major challenge to the ethnicity-democracy nexus. Political thinkers and politicians need
to carefully address several issues: the relationship between ethnic identity and
national citizenship, negotiating and reaching an equitable basis for the equal
political representation of diverse ethnic groups and establishing a minimum
baseline for citizens’ access to basic services, welfare and resources and compensating hitherto marginalised groups within affirmative action policies and
power-sharing arrangements.
The postcolonial state in Africa as well as regional organisations should as
a matter of urgency engage with ethnicity in terms of its relationship to democratic governance, accountability, economic distribution, political stability and
security. This will involve engaging with various social forces within civil society, and being able to forge futures in which the basic rights and interests of
different ethnic groups are safeguarded within the framework of the nation state
and regional organisations in the face increased globalisation and transborder
movements.
For Africa to curb the propensity of political elites to exploit ethnicity, which
often leads to ethnic conflicts and violence, the state should of necessity avoid
policies that fuel or exacerbate marginalisation or exclusion of some groups,
including ethnic/religious minorities. Given the fact that the public sector is
still the major employer of salaried and wage labour and the distributor of state
resources, it is imperative that some sort of power-sharing is designed through
consultation to reassure eventual losers in the political process (elections) that
they still have some say in political governance and would stand a good chance
at competing for power on the basis of a level playing field and fair rules in the
future. This also means that the state itself must undergo some transformation
to make it more democratic and less of a captive to vested interests that will limit
its capacity to effectively mediate competing demands and interests.
A major contributory factor to the crisis of nation-statism in Africa is the
economic factor. Apart from the fact that most African countries have remained
stuck in the role of primary product exporters, which makes them very vulnerable to global economic crises, the real challenge is that in most cases the econo22
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
mies of these countries remain extraverted and dominated by foreign businesses
and a small local elite. The structural problems that flow from the nature of Africa’s integration into the global economy include the susceptibility of national
economies to global crises, weak forward and backward linkages between the
primary product and other sectors of national economies and high levels of unemployment and poverty compounded by weak infrastructure and inadequate
basic services (often concentrated in urban areas).
As a result, large sections of the populace are alienated from the formal economy and excluded from the distribution of economic benefits, which in most
cases remain concentrated in the hands of a small elite with links to state and
economic power. This situation of economic “disempowerment” of the majority
of Africans invariably contributes to the resurgence of ethnicity as people seek
alternative spaces of social protection and survival outside a state they consider
as either too distant or irrelevant to their everyday survival or future aspirations.
This “retreat” from the national state has in some cases led to a “return” to ethnic groupings as an organisational base from which to challenge the legitimacy
of the postcolonial state, struggle to ensure that it responds to certain interests
and grievances or to organise to capture it. Such contestations tend to pose challenges for democratic transitions as they work against the level playing field that
is so important to the orderly functioning of the democratic process. Therefore,
a lot of attention needs to be directed at economic transformation and equitable
redistribution of resources in African countries as a way of addressing some of
the challenges that ethnicity may pose for democracy.
Ironically, most writing on the ethnicity-democratisation nexus does not focus enough on the external factor, beyond the fact of the politicisation of ethnic
identities during colonial rule. What is often not discussed is the way in which
the inequalities, stereotypes and divisions sown by colonialists have survived,
evolved or been reproduced in the postcolonial period mainly by political elites
seeking power. The second point relates to how some sections of the African
diasporas use ethnicity in keeping “national conversations” alive in the diaspora and participating in politics in their home countries. This is a resource or
constituency that has not been systematically studied in terms of its impact on
democratisation in Africa. Thirdly, what is the role of the international community in terms of its engagement with African elites in the context of democracypromotion and conflict-resolution? Two issues are relevant in this regard: sensitivity/non-sensitivity to the ethnicity-democratisation nexus, and a tendency by
certain international actors to be sympathetic towards certain forms of ethnic/
religious identity in pursuit of their interests. This is an issue that needs to be
further investigated.
It appears it is only now that Africa is facing developmental and citizenship
crises that some effort is being made to explore its own inherited histories and
23
Osita A. Agbu
cultures. Increasingly, scholars are looking for alternative philosophical and cultural paradigms to address the emerging challenges facing the continent. The
way forward in addressing the challenges ethnicity poses for democracy and
development in Africa lies in a combination of in-depth historically informed
and empirically based case studies, an analysis of the role of Africa’s political
leadership and elites and their interests in the democratisation processes currently occurring in Africa and unlocking the ways in which ethnicity can be
fully transformed into a democratic and developmental factor.
24
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
References
Adebanwi, Wale, 2007, “The carpenter’s revolt: Youth, violence and the reinvention of
culture in Nigeria”, Journal of Modern African Studies 43, 3.
Adejumobi, Said, 2005, “Identity, Citizenship and Conflict: The African Experience,”
in Fawole, Alade W. and Charles Ukeje (eds), The Crisis of the State and Regionalism
in West Africa: Identity, Citizenship and Conflict. Dakar: CODESRIA.
Adekson, Adedayo, 2004, The civil society problematique: Deconstructing civility and
southern Nigeria’s ethnic nationalism. London and New York: Routledge.
Agbu, Osita, 2004, “Re-inventing Federalism in Post-Transition Nigeria: Problems and
Prospects, Africa Development XXIX, 2.
Ake, Claude, 1992, The New World Order: A view from the South. Lagos: Malthouse.
—, 1993, “The unique case of African democracy”. International Affairs 96, 2.
—, 1996, Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution.
—, 2000, The Feasibility of Democracy in Africa. Dakar: CODESRIA.
Akwetey, Emmanuel, 1996, “Violent Ethno-Political conflicts and the Democratic
challenge”, in Olukoshi, Adebayo and Liisa Laakso (eds), Challenges to the NationState in Africa. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Anderson, Benedict, 1983, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anugwom, E. Edlyne, 2000, “Ethnic Conflict and Democracy in Nigeria: The
Marginalisation Question”, Journal of Social Development in Africa 15, 1.
Barth, Fredrick, 1969), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Oslo: Pensuntjeneste.
Brass, Paul (ed.), 1985, Ethnic Groups and the State. London: CroomHelm.
Chazan, Naomi, 1992, Politics and Society in contemporary Africa, 2nd edition. Boulder
CO: Lynne Rienner.
Connor, Walker, 1994, Ethno-nationalism: The Quest for understanding. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Dahl, Robert, 1971, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Deutsch, Karl, 1953, Nationalism and Social Communication: An inquiry into the
Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, Larry et al., 1988, Democracy in Developing Countries, 3 vols. Boulder CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Dougherty, James and Robert Pfaltzgraff Jr., 1996, Contending Theories of International
Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, 4th edition. New York: Longman.
Elington, T., 2000, “Colour Community or Ethnic Witches Brew”, Journal of conflict
Resolution 44, 2.
Glickman, Harry, 1995, Ethnic conflict and Democratisation in Africa. Atlanta: African
Studies Association Press.
25
Osita A. Agbu
Gurr, Robert Ted, 1994, Minorities at Risk: A Global view of Ethno-political conflicts.
Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Hameso, Seyoum, 1997, Ethnicity in Africa: Towards a positive approach. London: TSC
Publications.
Horowitz, L. Donald, 1985, Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley CA: University of
California Press.
—, 1994, “Democratisation in Divided Societies”, in Diamond, Larry and Marc F.
Plattner (eds), Nationalism, Ethnic conflict and Democratisation. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Kaplan, Robert, 1993, Balkan conflicts: A Journey through History. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Lake, David and Donald Rothchild, 1996, Ethnic fears and Global Engagement: The
International Spread and Management of Global Conflicts. IGCC Conference on the
International Spread and Management of Conflicts. See also http://www.igcc.ucsd.
edu/gleditsch2.php, 2002.
Lemarchand, Rene, 1999, Ethnicity as Myth: The View from the Central Africa.
Occasional Paper, Centre of African Studies, University of Copenhagen, May.
Lerner D., 1968, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernising the Middle Eas. New
York: Free Press.
Lipset S.M., 1959, “Some social requisites of Democracy: Economic development and
political legitimacy”, American Political Science Review 53, 1.
—, 1960, Political man: The Social basis of Politics. New York: Doubleday.
Metumera, D., 2010, “Democracy and the Challenge of Ethno-Nationalism in
Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Interrogating Institutional Mechanisms”, Journal of
Peace, Conflict and Development, Issue 15.
Morrison, D.G. and H.M. Stevenson, 1972, “Cultural Pluralism, Modernisation
and conflict: An Empirical Analysis of sources of instability in African Nations”,
Canadian Journal of Political Science. V, 1, March.
Ninsin, Kwame, 2006, “The Contradictions and Ironies of Elections in Africa”, Africa
Development XXXI, 3.
Nnoli, Okwudiba, 1978, Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension
Publishers (Revised second edition, 2008).
Nnoli, Okwudiba, 1995, Ethnicity and Development in Nigeria. Aldershot: Avebury.
—, 1998, Ethnic conflicts in Nigeria. Dakar: CODESRIA.
Nwokedi, Emeka, 1995, Politics of Democratisation: Changing Authoritarian Regimes in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Hamburg: Alexander Von-Humboldt Foundation.
Nwabueze, B.O., 1993, Democratisation. Ibadan: Spectrum Law Publishing.
Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges (2004), “Citizenship, Political Violence, and
Democratization in Africa,” Global Governance 10.
Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges, 2001, “The Democracy Project in Africa: The Journey so
far”, Nigerian Social Scientist 1, 1, March.
26
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
Obi Cyril, 2001, The Changing Forms of Identity Politics in Nigeria under Economic
Adjustment: The Case of the Oil Minorities Movement of the Niger Delta. Uppsala:
Nordic Africa Institute.
Okonta, Ike, 2007, “Niger Delta: Behind the Mask: Ijaw Militia Fight the Oil Cartel”,
in World War 4 Report, http://ww4report.com
Olowu, Dele, Adebayo Williams and Kayode Soremekun (eds), 1999, Governance and
Democratisation in West Africa. Dakar: CODESRIA.
Omeje, Kenneth, 2005, “Enyimba Enyi: The Comeback of Igbo nationalism in
Nigeria”, Review of African Political Economy 32, 106.
Osaghae, Eghosa, 1995, Structural Adjustment and Ethnicity in Nigeria. Research
Report No. 98. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Otite, Onugu, 1990, Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnicity in Nigeria. Ibadan: Shaneson.
Rothchild, Donald, 1986, “Interethnic conflict and Policy Analysis in Africa”, Ethnic
and Racial Studies 9, 1, January.
Salih, M.A. Mohammed and John Markakis, 1998, Ethnicity and the state in Eastern
Africa. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Sancton, T.A., 1987, “Democracy’s fragile flower spreads its roots”, Time 130, 28.
Shehadi, S. Kamal, 1993, Ethnic Self-determination and the Break-up of States. IISI
ADELPHI Paper 283, December.
Ukiwo, Ukoha, 2007, “From ‘Pirates’ to ‘Militants’: A Historical Perspective on AntiState and Anti-Oil Company Mobilization Among the Ijaw of Warri, Western
Niger Delta”, African Affairs 106: 425.
Vanhanen, Tatu, 1997, Prospects of Democratisation: A study of 172 countries. New York:
Routledge.
Yere, Michel, 2007, “Reconfiguring Nationhood in Côte d’Ivoire?” in Obi, Cyril,
Perspectives on Côte d’Ivoire: Between Political Breakdown and Post-Conflict Peace.
Discussion Paper 39.Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
27
Osita A. Agbu
DISCUSSION PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE INSTITUTE
Recent issues in the series are available electronically for download free of charge
www.nai.uu.se
1. Kenneth Hermele and Bertil Odén, Sanctions
and Dilemmas. Some Implications of Economic
Sanctions against South Africa.
1988. 43 pp. ISBN 91-7106-286-6
15. Birgit Brock-Utne, Language, Education and
Democracy in Africa.
2002. 47 pp. ISBN 91-7106-491-5
2. Elling Njål Tjönneland, Pax Pretoriana. The Fall
of Apartheid and the Politics of Regional Destabilisation.
1989. 31 pp. ISBN 91-7106-292-0
3. Hans Gustafsson, Bertil Odén and Andreas
Tegen, South African Minerals. An Analysis of
Western Dependence.
1990. 47 pp. ISBN 91-7106-307-2
16. Henning Melber et al., The New Partnership for
Africa’s development (NEPAD).
2002. 36 pp. ISBN 91-7106-492-3
17. Juma Okuku, Ethnicity, State Power and the
Democratisation Process in Uganda.
2002. 42 pp. ISBN 91-7106-493-1
18. Yul Derek Davids, et al., Measuring Democracy
and Human Rights in Southern Africa. Compiled
by Henning Melber.
2002. 50 pp. ISBN 91-7106-497-4
4. Bertil Egerö, South African Bantustans. From
Dumping Grounds to Battlefronts.
1991. 46 pp. ISBN 91-7106-315-3
5. Carlos Lopes, Enough is Enough! For an Alternative Diagnosis of the African Crisis.
1994. 38 pp. ISBN 91-7106-347-1
6. Annika Dahlberg, Contesting Views and Changing Paradigms.
1994. 59 pp. ISBN 91-7106-357-9
19. Michael Neocosmos, Raymond Suttner and Ian
Taylor, Political Cultures in Democratic South
Africa. Compiled by Henning Melber.
2002. 52 pp. ISBN 91-7106-498-2
20. Martin Legassick, Armed Struggle and Democracy. The Case of South Africa.
2002. 53 pp. ISBN 91-7106-504-0
21. Reinhart Kössler, Henning Melber and Per
Strand, Development from Below. A NamibianCase Study.
2003. 32 pp. ISBN 91-7106-507-5
7. Bertil Odén, Southern African Futures. Critical
Factors for Regional Development in Southern
Africa.
1996. 35 pp. ISBN 91-7106-392-7
8. Colin Leys and Mahmood Mamdani, Crisis and
Reconstruction – African Perspectives.
1997. 26 pp. ISBN 91-7106-417-6
22. Fred Hendricks, Fault-Lines in South African
Democracy. Continuing Crises of Inequality and
Injustice.
2003. 32 pp. ISBN 91-7106-508-3
9. Gudrun Dahl, Responsibility and Partnership in
Swedish Aid Discourse.
2001. 30 pp. ISBN 91-7106-473-7
23. Kenneth Good, Bushmen and Diamonds. (Un)
Civil Society in Botswana.
2003. 39 pp. ISBN 91-7106-520-2
10. Henning Melber and Christopher Saunders,
Transition in Southern Africa – Comparative
Aspects.
2001. 28 pp. ISBN 91-7106-480-X
24. Robert Kappel, Andreas Mehler, Henning Melber and Anders Danielson, Structural Stability in
an African Context.
2003. 55 pp. ISBN 91-7106-521-0
11. Regionalism and Regional Integration in Africa.
2001. 74 pp. ISBN 91-7106-484-2
25. Patrick Bond, South Africa and Global Apartheid. Continental and International Policies and
Politics.
2004. 45 pp. ISBN 91-7106-523-7
12. Souleymane Bachir Diagne, et al., Identity and
Beyond: Rethinking Africanity.
2001. 33 pp. ISBN 91-7106-487-7
26. Bonnie Campbell (ed.), Regulating Mining in
Africa. For whose benefit?
2004. 89 pp. ISBN 91-7106-527-X
13. Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, et al., Africa in the
New Millennium. Edited by Raymond Suttner.
2001. 53 pp. ISBN 91-7106-488-5
27. Suzanne Dansereau and Mario Zamponi, Zimbabwe – The Political Economy of Decline. Compiled by Henning Melber.
2005. 43 pp. ISBN 91-7106-541-5
14. Zimbabwe’s Presidential Elections 2002. Edited
by Henning Melber.
2002. 88 pp. ISBN 91-7106-490-7
28
Ethnicity and Democratisation in Africa
28. Lars Buur and Helene Maria Kyed, State Recogni-tion of Traditional Authority in Mozambique.
The nexus of Community Representation and State
Assist-ance.
2005. 30 pp. ISBN 91-7106-547-4
29. Hans Eriksson and Björn Hagströmer, Chad –
Towards Democratisation or Petro-Dictatorship?
2005. 82 pp.ISBN 91-7106-54930. Mai Palmberg and Ranka Primorac (eds), Skinning the Skunk – Facing Zimbabwean Futures.
2005. 40 pp. ISBN 91-7106-552-0
31. Michael Brüntrup, Henning Melber and Ian
Taylor, Africa, Regional Cooperation and the
World Market – Socio-Economic Strategies in
Times of Global Trade Regimes. Com-piled by
Henning Melber.
2006. 70 pp. ISBN 91-7106-559-8
32. Fibian Kavulani Lukalo, Extended Handshake
or Wrestling Match? – Youth and Urban Culture
Celebrating Politics in Kenya.
2006.58 pp. ISBN 91-7106-567-9
41. Olawale Ismail, The Dynamics of Post-Conflict
Reconstruction and Peace Building in West Africa.
Between Change and Stability.
2009.52 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-637-4
42. Ron Sandrey and Hannah Edinger, Examining
the South Africa–China Agricultural Relationship.
2009. 58 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-643-5
43. Xuan Gao, The Proliferation of Anti-Dumping
and Poor Governance in Emerging Economies.
2009. 41 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-644-2
44. Lawal Mohammed Marafa, Africa’s Business and
Development Relationship with China. Seeking
Moral and Capital Values of the Last Economic
Frontier.
2009. xx pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-645-9
45. Mwangi wa Githinji, Is That a Dragon or an
Elephant on Your Ladder? The Potential Impact of
China and India on Export Led Growth in African Countries.
2009. 40 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-646-6
33. Tekeste Negash, Education in Ethiopia: From
Crisis to the Brink of Collapse.
2006. 55 pp. ISBN 91-7106-576-8
46. Jo-Ansie van Wyk, Cadres, Capitalists, Elites and
Coalitions. The ANC, Business and Development
in South Africa.
2009. 61 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-656-5
34. Fredrik Söderbaum and Ian Taylor (eds) MicroRegionalism in West Africa. Evidence from Two
Case Studies.
2006. 32 pp. ISBN 91-7106-584-9
47. Elias Courson, Movement for the Emancipation of
the Niger Delta (MEND). Political Marginalization, Repression and Petro-Insurgency in the Niger
Delta.2009. 30 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-657-2
35. Henning Melber (ed.), On Africa – Scholars and
African Studies.
2006. 68 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-585-8
48. Babatunde Ahonsi, Gender Violence and HIV/
AIDS in Post-Conflict West Africa. Issues and
Responses. 2010.
38 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-665-7
36. Amadu Sesay, Does One Size Fit All? The Sierra
Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Revisited.
2007. 56 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-586-5
37. Karolina Hulterström, Amin Y. Kamete and
Henning Melber, Political Opposition in African
Countries – The Case of Kenya, Namibia, Zambia
and Zimbabwe.
2007. 86 pp. ISBN 978-7106-587-2
38. Henning Melber (ed.), Governance and State
Delivery in Southern Africa. Examples from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.
2007. 65 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-587-2
39. Cyril Obi (ed.), Perspectives on Côte d’Ivoire:
Between Political Breakdown and Post-Conflict
Peace.
2007. 66 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-606-6
40. Anna Chitando, Imagining a Peaceful Society. A
Vision of Children’s Literature in a Post-Conflict
Zimbabwe.
2008. 26 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-623-7
49. Usman Tar and Abba Gana Shettima, Endangered Democracy? The Struggle over Secularism
and its Implications for Politics and Democracy in
Nigeria.
2010. 21 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-666-4
50. Garth Andrew Myers, Seven Themes in African
Urban Dynamics.2010. 28 pp.
ISBN 978-91-7106-677-0
51. Abdoumaliq Simone, The Social Infrastructures
of City Life in Contemporary Africa.
2010. 33 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-678-7
52. Li Anshan, Chinese Medical Cooperation in Africa. With Special Emphasis on the Medical Teams
and Anti-Malaria Campaign.
2011. 24 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-683-1
53. Folashade Hunsu, Zangbeto: Navigating the
Spaces Between Oral art, Communal Security And
Conflict Mediation in Badagry, Nigeria.
2011. 27 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-688-6
29
Osita A. Agbu
54. Jeremiah O. Arowosegbe, Reflections on the
Challenge of Reconstructing Post-Conflict States in
West Africa: Insights from Claude Ake’s Political
Writings.
2011. 40 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-689-3
55. Bertil Odén, The Africa Policies of Nordic Countries and the Erosion of the Nordic Aid Model: A
comparative study.
2011. 66 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-691-6
56. Angela Meyer, Peace and Security Cooperation
in Central Africa: Developments, Challenges and
Prospects.
2011. 47 pp ISBN 978-91-7106-693-0
57. Godwin R. Murunga, Spontaneous or Premeditated? Post-Election Violence in Kenya.
2011. 58 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-694-7
58. David Sebudubudu & Patrick Molutsi, The Elite
as a Critical Factor in National Development: The
Case of Botswana.
2011. 48 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-695-4
59. Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, The Zimbabwean
Nation-State Project. A Historical Diagnosis of
Identity and Power-Based Conflicts in a Postcolonial
State.
2011. 97 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-696-1
60. Jide Okeke, Why Humanitarian Aid in Darfur is
not a Practice of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’.
2011. 45 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-697-8
61. Florence Odora Adong, Recovery and Development
Politics. Options for Sustainable Peacebuilding in
Northern Uganda.
2011, 72 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-698-5
62. Osita A. Agbu, Ethnicity and Democratisation in
Africa. Challenges for Politics and Development.
2011, 30 pp. ISBN 978-91-7106-699-2
30